St. Greta Thunberg has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for the third year running and is the bookies’ favourite, for her services to infantile ranting, doom-mongering, and historical illiteracy. Just one question: why?
Teenage doomster Greta Thunberg is the hot favourite to win this year’s Nobel Peace Prize. Her predictions of global death and destruction seem to strike a chord with the Nobel committee, gullible youngsters, and cynical politicians alike.
Greta has been in full tantrum mode this week at the Youth4Climate Summit in Milan. Earlier in the week, she lambasted politicians for not acting quickly enough to prevent the End of Days. In true petulant teenage fashion, Thunberg’s critique of the situation amounted to “blah, blah, blah.” Such wise words of wisdom from the teenage soothsayer.
Yet, unbelievably, politicians are taking this nonsense seriously. Italian Climate Minister Roberto Cingolani took these words of wisdom to heart, saying that “the lack of attention in the past, the message is complete … this is what we are trying to do now, to improve.”
Yesterday Thunberg met with the Italian PM, Mario Draghi, and I have no doubt that if she turns up in Glasgow for the COP26 summit next month, Boris Johnson and Nicola Sturgeon, the Scottish first minister, will be queuing up to kneel at the altar of St. Greta.
But why are politicians paying attention to her, and why are they so afraid of her jumbled ramblings? She’s not elected to anything, even though she is now old enough to stand for election, and she is only ever beastly to them.
The climate change movement continues to run into problems, including disheveled public meltdowns by its ideological leaders.
Rarely at at loss for words, the world most popular climate activist, Greta Thunberg, 18, suddenly has “nothing to say” on what to do about climate change.
During a recent global summit, a visibly unhinged Greta shocked onlookers as she descended in her now infamous “Blah, blah, blah” rant.
Still, her core supporters clapped and cheered, but her bizarre performance may not have sat well with Davos elites who depend on the young Swede to sell their agenda to their global constituency. She even took a sarcastic swipe at the World Economic Forum’s sacred “Build Back Better” mantra. It must have been a jaw-dropping moment for Klaus Schwab.
But behind Greta’s green mask is the all too familiar ring of radical leftwing politics.
“She’s got nothing to say about what is actually happening on climate change,” says Sky News host Rowan Dean. “She just simply says ‘action, action, action’ – the cry of every despot, every dictator, every communist, every socialist, every Marxist.”
The real difficulty facing the movement is that it’s hard to articulate a solution to a problem which has not happened yet.
Instead we are told to shut up and trust ‘The Science.’
As a result of this fundamental flaw in the climatist argument, we’ll likely see more flippant tirades by Thunberg and others.
Are the wheels finally coming off the ‘climate chaos’ road show?
“Under the suggestion and guidance of the BIPOC members” of the group, a New Zealand youth environmental protest group inspired by teen activist Greta Thunberg disbanded, accusing itself of racism.
School Strike 4 Climate’s Auckland chapter wrote on June 12:
School Strike 4 Climate Auckland is disbanding as an organisation. This is under the suggestion and guidance of the BIPOC (Black, Indigenous and People of Colour) members of our group, as well as individual BIPOC activists and organisations. We are not holding any more climate strikes in the Auckland region. … BIPOC communities are disproportionately affected by climate change, so the fight for climate justice should be led by their voices and needs, not Pākehā ones.
“Pākehā” means white New Zealanders.
Greta Thunberg accidentally shared a message showing she was getting told what to write on Twitter about the ongoing violent farmers’ revolt in India — sparking a police investigation and a political firestorm, according to reports.
The 18-year-old left-wing eco-activist shared — and then quickly deleted — a message that detailed a list of “suggested posts” about the ongoing protests, according to the posts that were saved by Breaking 911.
The list gave a series of tips on what to post, asking her to also repost and tag other celebrities tweeting about it, including pop star Rihanna.
As well as the Twitter storm, the “toolkit” she shared also suggested highlighting planned demonstrations at Indian embassies.
So, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has awarded the 2020 Nobel Peace Prize to the World Food Programme for its efforts to combat hunger and to prevent it being used as a weapon of war.
This is quite right, too, since she did not deserve it.
Far from encouraging peace, she has spread discord and division. Far from making the world a happier, safer place, she has helped make people fearful and pessimistic. Along with Extinction Rebellion, she has peddled the notion that we all have to stop doing the things we enjoy, such as travelling and trading globally – to live narrower, more restricted lives that have less impact upon the planet.
Perhaps she’s right that if we all bought and journeyed locally, travelling to nearby villages by horse and cart, it might make a smaller footprint on the environment. When we did live like that, however, mothers died in childbirth, children died in infancy, people died of plague, and life for many was tragically short and squalid.
It was the Industrial Revolution and its wealth creation that made possible the advances in medicine, sanitation and science that have made better lives possible for so many. The notion that we have to stop modern industrial technology in order to save the Earth from extinction is as false as it is dangerous. The reality is that we have to use that modern industrial technology to solve the problems we face.
A plausible candidate for next year’s Nobel Peace Prize might be the Duke of Cambridge. Along with Sir David Attenborough, he has launched the Earthshot programme, which will give prizes for innovations and inventions that help solve environmental problems. Five prizes a year, each of one million pounds, are to be awarded for ten years to teams that produce novel ways of addressing issues such as climate and energy, nature and biodiversity, oceans, air pollution and fresh water.
This is exactly the right approach, just as Greta Thunberg’s is the wrong one. The aim is to stimulate ambition and innovation to explore and invent novel ways to help the Earth solve its problems. The result will be a huge stimulus to solutions involving technological change, rather than ones that require behavioural change. Instead of using the stick to bully people into living more simply, it will provide an incentive to help us live more cleverly.